If you place your bet on Miills, you put it on someone with an incredibly lousy history. Period.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > In video 1, Randy shows a bomb calorimeter measurement of an explosion. > It was clear from the reading of the temperature rise that the output of > that single explosion was 623J (I think, don't remember exactly). So, it > appears incontrovertible that the output is around 700J as Mills claims. > > Well, the input is 5v x 10,000A or 5J for the short duration. > > Why is there a question that the explosion can achieve a high COP. In > this case, it appears to be >100. > > I am not sure where the controversy is. COP appears to be clearly > overunity. > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 5:59 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? > > Jones: > > I get the impression that Mills has been sitting on his hind quarters for > at least a decade. He's brilliant. He knows how to attract investors to > pie-in-the-sky projects that in the end, do not pan out. Now he's seeing > Rossi with his demos, promises, $20M engagement with Industrial Heat, > INDEPENDENT third party submission... Mills is in scramble mode. He got > beat by Rossi and he either goes after all his supposedly superior prior > solutions or he gets ready for the patent war that is to come. Mills will > be a patent warrior and nothing more. None of his fun experiments will > come to fruition in the industrial/commercial nor consumer market. > > You have stated that if anyone finds nuclear ash in Mills's experiments, > it's a death blow to his theory. With the money that will soon be > attracted to this sector of industry, I predict that multiple death blows > will be dealt to his theory. Maybe half of such death blows will have real > data rather than contrived data, but it will be enough to relegate Mills to > the fringes of History. > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Steven reported that massive amounts of info from the BLP demo is now >> online. I wish it was better organized. >> >> The most hyped up doc is here : >> >> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons >> tration-Abbreviated.pdf >> >> I have not found time to wade through all of this yet, at least not with >> any >> confidence, but here are first impressions of what seems to be going on. >> These could be inaccurate. >> >> 1) There is good evidence of Pout exceeding Pin by a significant >> margin >> 2) COP of 5 has been mentioned as the net gain from photocell >> conversion >> 3) COP of 100-200 is claimed as the reaction gain, less catalyst >> rejuvenation and loses >> 4) Titanium seems to be the preferred catalyst (but knowing Mills he >> has a better one under wraps) >> 5) He says but does not prove that the catalyst can be rejuvenated in >> line with the reaction. This is the key. Anyone can burn Ti for gain, it >> is >> a great fuel. >> 6) In short, everything hinges on rejuvenation of the catalyst, which >> is still under wraps, or else I missed it. >> 7) Even if the gain is substantial, this is basically oxidation >> (combustion) of a catalyst, but with gain over and above the chemical >> gain. >> Even a gain of 200:1 does not insure commercialization! (except for >> Military >> uses) To be explained. >> 8) Ferro-titanium is not expensive, but nano-titanium powder is. The >> difference is 5000:1 since ingots go for $5 pound but pure powder costs >> much >> more. >> 9) Titanium is expensive to rejuvenate (reduce), but there is >> probably >> a secret catalyst which is easier and which is a trade secret. There is no >> doubt it is oxidized in the >> 10) Bottom line - this technology could be great - or a bust for the >> general public, depending on the cost of catalyst rejuvenation. I am not >> impressed with the level of openness here. >> 11) If the best catalyst is nano-titanium, then this stage show is >> basically a delusion for the alternative energy crowd - economically . >> >> This turned up on one of the forums. Past public claims by Mills/BLP: >> >> 1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W, >> within 4 months. >> >> 2005: Only months away from commercialization. >> >> 2008: 50000 W, within 12 to 18 months. >> >> 2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months. >> >> 2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013 >> >> 2014: 100000 W in 16 to 18 weeks. >> >> If history is an indicator, this was little more than a horse-and-pony >> show >> put on to raise capital but done so that investors would not notice how >> contrived the whole thing is. >> >> However, there could be significant military aerospace uses which will >> carry >> the project. This is not an answer to the energy crisis as it stands now. >> The most interest should come from NASA and the Pentagon. I could see this >> as a fabulous solid fuel rocket engine. >> >> I hope all of those investors can stand a loss, because this technology is >> most likely not ready for prime time in the commercial arena, and there >> could be allegations of actual fraud this time around, if Mills does not >> have a commercial device in 2015. If his ace-in-the-hole is the Pentagon, >> then he will dodge a bullet by that tactic. >> >> IMO - there is no chance of a commercial device in 2015 for the general >> public or for Grid usage, if nano-titanium is required. This is not what >> we >> have been looking for as an affordable alternative to fossil fuel. >> >> Yet in the end - power could cost 10 times more than fossil fuel - and yet >> it would be great for weaponry. Admitting that from the start, however, >> does >> not bring enough investors to the table. >> >> >> >
